+1
Is it the headline that has your panties in a bunch? Does the difference between “Trump adminstation considers mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants” and “Trump administration considers maximizing the participation of State National Guard units to round up unauthorized immigrants” make it “fake news”? Or is this an issue with the memo itself and its veracity? Because I’m not seeing a huge difference between Trump wants the governors of states to use national guard to enforce immigration and Trump wants to mobilize national guard to enforce immigration. It seems like your nitpicking one thing (who must give the order to use them) and missing the actual substance of the story.
The headline describes a blatantly illegal action and gives a number that is nowhere in the memo. Whereas the memo follows the law and does not give any numbers.
The news story was fake. The memo wasn’t. But the news story definitely didn’t match the memo.
Title of section D
“Expansion of 287(g) Program to Include State Guard Units in the Border Region”
So that directly said that the National Guard was being considered for a role.
It is stated that the Guard is well suited in the role of enforcing federal immigration law.
“As many as 100,000” means from 1-100,000 soldiers.
Do you have a cite for a definite lower number?
That would be Paragraph/Section D.
And as I already explained, Section D has nothing to do with the headline.
The headline describes a blatantly illegal action and gives a number that is nowhere in the memo. Whereas the memo follows the law and does not give any numbers.
BTW, you know who the last president was that used National Guard troops to deal with illegal immigrants? Hint: his name starts with O and rhymes with “yo mama”.
And which president did it before that one? Hint: his name is something sitting in which two birds are worth one in your hand.
Oh, you wrote some words but they were all lies.
Sure, sure. And you’re an expert on the law, right? :rolleyes: Is there anything you won’t lie about?
Is this your version of Bricker’s schtick?
Didn’t you read pulykamell’s post? 13 minutes you had. Should be enough even for you.
Or do you ignore the inconvenient posts?
Well, if it IS voluntary, then our governor’s response is predictable. It will be a very pointed version of “fuck you Trump”. And since it is “voluntary”, Trump can’t do a fucking thing about it. By the way. LAPD and the governor have already told him “fuck you”, but in a semi-polite way, as have the mayors of L.A and S.F.
And if it is NOT voluntary, we have two Senators just itching to kick Trump’s ass.
You did fill out the Mainstream Media Accountability Survey today, DIDN’T YOU?
Sieg Heil, Mein Fuehrer!
The use of American troops for domestic law enforcement is strictly forbidden. That would be a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
From the wikipedia page;
The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress.
Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[6]
The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):
10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
So at least theoretically, it could be authorized by an act of Congress, but that has always been a line no member of our government or military has been willing to cross.
If the Republicans cross this line, then we have full reason to believe that they are throwing away our Constitution and that we, the American people, are under threat of Tyranny and Dictatorship.
No doubt this will be a waste of time, but here goes anyway. Cite & cite, along with explanation of same, please. Try to be accurate when you explain what Operation Phalanx really did.
I’m not giving them my email, thanks.
Then use the following email address foolsguinea .
Since you apparently know it already, why should I bother?
This is just sad and pathetic.
Of course.
And of course the memo was not suggesting it.
It was the AP fake story that suggested it.